Iraq next? Not yet
By W. James Antle III
web posted January 14, 2002
As US Special Forces and our British allies continue to sift
through the remains of the Taliban's shattered mountain hideouts,
the drumbeat for "finishing the job" against Saddam Hussein in
Iraq grows louder.
In the Persian Gulf War, liberating Kuwait from the Iraqis was
understood by most foreign policy realists to be in the national
interest on the grounds that Saddam should neither be able to
threaten the Western world's access to Middle Eastern oil nor
develop nuclear weapons. Despite a decade of containment,
there is evidence that Saddam is still working toward becoming a
nuclear power. Enter Stage Right editor Steven Martinovich
recently outlined some of this evidence in an article advocating
new military intervention against Iraq (http:
//www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1201/1201iraq.htm).
It is worth noting at this point that the first President George
Bush had reasons to stop short of Baghdad during the Gulf War.
Although we today remember a successful war which led to
presidential approval ratings in excess of 90 percent that were
never seen before and not seen again until his son's post-9/11
tenure, it was by no means clear that the White House was going
to be able to obtain congressional authorization to use force
against Iraq. Fully 47 senators opposed Desert Storm, with Vice
President Dan Quayle on hand in anticipation of breaking a
possible tie in the fateful vote. The United Nations resolution that
was the basis of the artfully crafted Gulf War coalition called
specifically for ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, not effecting a change
in regime.
Had President Bush (41) gone further and worked to overthrow
Saddam, he would have jeopardized both his political support at
home and the diverse coalition of nations supporting the US
position abroad. Furthermore, there was concern of greater
instability in the event that purer Islamic fundamentalists replaced
Saddam or if his ouster occasioned war in that country. Finally,
there were inaccurate Arab intelligence reports that the Iraqis
might have been close to overthrowing Saddam on their own.
Every reason except for the last is at least worth considering
before the younger President Bush makes Iraq his next target for
the war against terrorism. While there are many legitimate
reasons to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's actions,
attacking Iraq may not be the most logical extension of an anti-
terrorism policy. First and foremost, there is no concrete
evidence that Saddam, loathsome as he is, was involved in the
attacks against the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.
Despite initial reports that raised suspicions that the Iraqis
provided al-Qaida with the intelligence necessary to carry out the
9/11 attacks, a solid link between Saddam and those incidents of
mass murder has not been established. Syndicated columnist
Robert Novak quoted NATO Secretary General Lord
Robertson as telling US senators there was "not a scintilla" of
evidence to support an Iraqi connection. Former British foreign
secretary and House of Commons leader Robin Cook said, "I
am not aware of any evidence pointing to Iraq's complicity in
those outrages."
With al-Qaida operatives still in place in Sudan, Yemen and
Somalia among other places, now is not the time to end the
international coalition against terrorism. Yet that is precisely what
a premature or inadequately justified attack against Iraq
threatens to do. Not only would the United States lose the
support of its Arab partners in the coalition, even such steadfast
allies as Great Britain have indicated their reluctance to
participate in a campaign against Iraq. It may be the case that
only Israel would support us and that development would play
right into the hands of the clerics who agitate for terrorism against
the American and Israeli people. And it does not bode well for
the cooperation the US will need to continue rooting out al-
Qaida.
The United States must combine its military strength and
willingness to use its power prudently in defense of vital national
interests with a new humility in international interventions. While
the blame the victim arguments of some noninterventionists
following last fall's terrorist attacks were repugnant, there is truth
to the claim that the US government's tendency to behave as
global policeman has generated ill will in many parts of the world.
Those who despise Western civilization and the American way
of life point to American policies that have led to a rapidly
growing number of military deployments in their propaganda.
This is not a cop-out to terrorists, but recognition of the wisdom
of our Founding Fathers who warned about the consequences of
empire.
There are many options short of war, such as the reintroduction
of nuclear inspectors, which can be applied to Iraq without
compromising our ability to stem the activities of international
terrorist cells. If neighbors such as Turkey feel secure with a
more restrained approach, so should we. Better to keep the
coalition together while continuing the war on terrorism and
keeping an eye on Saddam. We retain the option to strike in the
event that we discover solid evidence of a national security
threat.
A Saddam-free world would be a desirable place. Yet the
current international environment is one in which we should heed
Teddy Roosevelt and "speak softly and carry a big stick." Let's
take one step at a time.
W. James Antle III is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and
can be reached at wjantle@enterstageright.com.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com